131 So. 2d 600 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"`a public highway actually wrought and traveled, a railroad, a canal, or a creek running through a large tract devoted to one purpose does not necessarily divide it into independent parcels, provided the owner has the legal right to cross the intervening strip of land or water.' . . . "We regard this summary as correctly stating the principles to be applied in Louisiana in deciding the question, and no controlling contrary authority is cited to us. The trial court correctly applied these principles in determining that, as a matter of fact, the defendants' property consisted before the taking of a single 120-acre tract suitable for industrial purposes. For, as the evidence indicates, the owner had the legal right to cross the railroad and pipeline servitudes and the legal right to use the pipeline rights of way for many purposes, all of which under the circumstances reflected by this record constituted these rail and pipeline rights of way an asset in the integrated industrial use of the entire tract (even though there was a lessened fee value of the strips themselves actually subject to the rail and pipeline servitudes)." 131 So.2d at 604 .”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Shreveport v. Noel Estate, Inc. · State, Department of Highways v. Burden

2. ““The principal residue of the defendants’ tract left after the taking is 94.60 acres south and east of the service road. The defendants’ experts testified that the only damage sustained by this remainder as industrial property is its deprivation of rail access. The trial court allowed $3,000 for this item of severance damages. The uncontradicted testimony indicates this to be the minimum cost to the landowner of constructing a spur line to the defendants’ property south of the service road, from the main railway line along its north side. (The Department stipulated that it does not and will not object to construction of such railroad spur across the service road, providing it be done in accordance with the usual Departmental standards; the uncontradicted testimony is that the railroad and pipeline companies cooperate with such spur construction to and across their rights of way by industrial users in the area.) Although the appellant Department contends that the award for construction of a spur is speculative because at the time of trial two years ago neither the service road nor the spur line had been constructed, the evidence shows that the ultimate purchaser for industrial purposes would deduct this necessary railroad-spur construction cost from the price he offered. (Tr. 152— 153.) Where very similarly an expropriated drainage ditch interfered with previous rail access of potential industrial property, the Supreme Court rejected similar arguments as to the remote and spec”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 180 So. 2d 879 - State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Phillips

3. “fronted for three-fourths of a mile along a much-traveled hard-surfaced highway.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 272 So. 2d 746 - State, Department of Highways v. Smith